Skip to main content

Though there is almost certainly no chance that it will gain enough votes to make it to the second round of voting on change.org, there is an idea over there that I think merits wider discussion.
Nationally Coordinated Conservation and Restoration

Among the many challenges facing us today, one of the biggest is that of ecosystem destruction and fragmentation.  This has resulted in loss of biodiversity and made species and whole ecosystems much more vulnerable to dangers like climate change and invasives.

To deal with this ecological crisis, we must engage in two basic activities:

  1. Conservation as we usually think about it, protecting existing threatened species or places
  1. Restoration of damaged ecosystems, creating more habitat and reconnecting fragmented landscapes

A big problem we face in attempting to combat habitat fragmentation is that the issue crosses political boundaries.  Nature doesn't respect borders, but decisions are made within and for those various politically defined borders.  Because of this, efforts are often restricted in scope to some particular level of organization - a county forest preserve, a national park, etc.  And while these conservation/restoration projects are valuable, they cannot really solve the problem.  We are left with a scatter-shot of projects and policies, when what we need is something much more unified.

As such, we should work to develop a national system for coordinating between the various stakeholders and governmental levels and organizations to make sure that we are doing the most effective ecological restoration and conservation work we can.  This will involve:
-Creating a framework for bringing organizations and stakeholders together
-Collecting and sharing information
-Methods for determining the most valuable or necessary projects
-Resource sharing

Because of the structure of our political and social system, this framework for coordination would have to be a national organization acting in partnership with other entities.  In effect, this coordinating body would be an umbrella organization, looking out for the good of the entire nation's environment by coordinating and efficiently allocating the resources, skills, and ideas of other organizations around the country.

Basically I'm looking not only for votes (as I said, unlikely to get enough anyway), but thoughts and input on the idea itself.  So, Kossacks,  what say you?

Originally posted to joaquin67 on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:57 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Traditional Tip Jar (6+ / 0-)

    Though I swear, come the revolution we'll be doing something about that...

  •  See the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera

    Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, languishing in Congress all these years, and all the work that has already gone into it, to avoid reinventing the wheel.

    What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

    by melvin on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:12:50 PM PST

  •  Does anyone know anything about the people (0+ / 0-)

    who run change.org? Do they have any significant political accomplishments under their belt? I didn't see anything noteworthy doing a quick Google on the founder, Ben Rattray. It seems to me that voting on issues at change.gov would be make more sense than spending time on a social networking site.

  •  "Biggest" ... (0+ / 0-)

    of course, is a dangerous term to use ... is it certainly a part of the critical web of challenges related to global warming and resource destruction.  

    Do you think what you are proposing/thinking here is nearly strong/powerful enough in face of what needs to be happening?

    Now, I have a fundamental question about the value and worth of Change.ORG. Have you actually read through any section, in entirety, of the listing. I'm sorry, but the "top" of the list items are often not items meriting being top of the national agenda. The lists, themselves, are hit/miss, dependent on personalities/thoughts/choices of those engaged. At the end of the day, what does it really mean?  Will there be an 'organizational' push of top-rated ideas, even if they don't merit being top of the national agenda?  

    •  Powerful Enough (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel

      I take something like this to be a sort of politically possible path that can at least get us going - we'd need some fairly significant changes to the way the system runs in order to have any sort of national body that could, by itself, implement the sort of work necessary.  This is actually less of a problem for places out in the mountain west, where the federal government has more direct control over large tracts of land and there aren't quite so many roads and towns to deal with, but coordinating restoration and conservation work is vital elsewhere as well.

      What a national coordinating body has going for it is that it allows us to get started doing work that should have been started yesterday, but also it doesn't make it harder to adopt an even more unified approach in the future.  In fact, it could quite easily serve as the groundwork for future expansions to the project.

      As for change.org, well, that's part of why I brought this here too.  The value of ideas is largely independent of their popularity.  But if some good ideas can make there way to the ears of the powerful through the route they offer, excellent.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site